Remove a law.

Savber

New member
Feb 17, 2011
262
0
0
vxicepickxv said:
Savber said:
I will redefine the First Amendment to be allow ALL religious expression to be equally exposed and shared in the public arena. No more bans on religious symbols in the public and no more so-called divide between the church and public arena.

A man should be free to express his religious beliefs in the public arena as long as it does not physically HARM anyone or coerces another individual to listen.

I'm tired of a judicial system that keeps banning expression of religious symbols in the public square. Instead, they should ACCOMMODATE all beliefs.


There... how's that for radical?
So, I can see you're anti Scientology too.

The biggest issue I see with it though is what about those of us with a lack of belief?
No one ever lacks in beliefs. You might not believe in some almighty deity or some crazy six-armed huntress, the point remains is that all individual has a set of beliefs that he or she lives by.

Everyone has a different perspective of the world whether it's something weird, dangerous, or good. I'm tired of how religious perspectives get singled out while secular perspectives are seen as the default perspective of an individual. Rather than some levels that goes from secular to religious, I see these worldviews coming down to a big crossroad with each belief having the same virtues and issues. In the end, all views have their own angels and demons.

Perspective are perspectives... Besides the ones that causes physical hurt or mental bondage, I believe we should accommodate rather than avoid them in the public square.
 

Spartan448

New member
Apr 2, 2011
539
0
0
Remove current U.S. tax laws, replace with a 20% flat tax for all areas, no refunds. We give our citizens way to much for way too little, and it might just bring down the superpower that is the United States. It baffles me that Al Queida would waste resources on trying to destroy the U.S. when it seems the U.S. is clearly and slowly killing itself off.
 

The Code

New member
Mar 9, 2010
279
0
0
JoJoDeathunter said:
Of course not. Many unemployed people are searching for new jobs despite hordes of economic problems the world faces, a great deal of disabled people can still lead perfectly normal lives as contributing members of society, and as far as orphans go, don't you think their lives are hard enough already? Besides, they're just kids. That's a massive dick move, even in my book. Technically, there are things like this in place already. It's known as justifiable homicide. In certain situations, such as in self defense and the defense of others, ending the life of another person is deemed permissible and results in no charges filed against the 'offending' party.

If what I've said has offended you in any way, then I apologize for doing so. I have a condition known as Asperger's Syndrome, which causes me to think about things in a very objective and pragmatic way. Applications of the law are no exception to this.
 

blankedboy

New member
Feb 7, 2009
5,234
0
0
I'd just remove marriage in general and wait for people with highly spiritual morals come along and try to argue against it. That'd be a laugh :>
 

JoJo

and the Amazing Technicolour Dream Goat 🐐
Moderator
Legacy
Mar 26, 2020
7,132
71
53
Country
🇬🇧
Gender
♂
The Code said:
JoJoDeathunter said:
Of course not. Many unemployed people are searching for new jobs despite hordes of economic problems the world faces, a great deal of disabled people can still lead perfectly normal lives as contributing members of society, and as far as orphans go, don't you think their lives are hard enough already? Besides, they're just kids. That's a massive dick move, even in my book. Technically, there are things like this in place already. It's known as justifiable homicide. In certain situations, such as in self defense and the defense of others, ending the life of another person is deemed permissible and results in no charges filed against the 'offending' party.

If what I've said has offended you in any way, then I apologize for doing so. I have a condition known as Asperger's Syndrome, which causes me to think about things in a very objective and pragmatic way. Applications of the law are no exception to this.
I'm glad you wouldn't kill orphans, though that would be a bit more than a "massive dick move", it's make you a monster on par with the Nazis or Stalin in my opinion.

Anyway I'm not offended, I just think this idea is terrible. I happen to have Asperger's Syndrome myself (properly diagonosed when I was around 9 or 10, I'm not one of the idiots who self-diagnose and then use it as an excuse) and this idea still makes no sense. There's still two big issues I have:

1) You haven't given much indication of who qualifies to be worthy of death, all you've confirmed is that drug-taking child molesters would qualify and that unemployed/disabled/orphans wouldn't. There's a lot of people in between those two extremes.

2) Your system doesn't make logical sense, think about the two possibilites if someone is accused of a crime worthy of death under your scheme:

Current Law System:

A) If they are guilty, they get punished

B) If they are innocent, they go free and no-one is harmed

Your System:

A) If they are guilty, they got punished

B) If they are innocent, then there's no way to bring them back to live and reverse the punishment, and the killer gets put in prison too.

So even putting aside whether certain criminals are worthy of death or not, your system still causes innocent people to die needlessly and puts others in jail. Killing in self-defence is very different as you are protecting human life in an instant of danger and have no choice but to act to save innocents. That's a last resort when there's no other options, it's preferable to have a proper trial if possible.
 

Esotera

New member
May 5, 2011
3,400
0
0
I'd add a law that every Englishman would have to become proficient in the use of his bow and sword, and carry these items at all times in public. Also everyone would have to wear a cape. It'd just make life more interesting.
 

Zeema

The Furry Gamer
Jun 29, 2010
4,580
0
0
Phlakes said:
Anything that restricts rights for gay people.
this

OR remove the law that makes it if a Intruder breaks into my house cuts himself and then i can get sued by him.
 

StormShaun

The Basement has been unleashed!
Feb 1, 2009
6,948
0
0
1. The ability to have weapons out in public.

2. If you kill some one or injury them for self defense it should be legal.